We know all too well the reasons people decide not to be candid. Being forthright with your views and frank in the way you express them can hurt others’ feelings and make you unlikeable. Politeness is generally indirect. Likeable people don’t impose their views on others. So, most people swallow what they really think in an effort to get along.
Being filtered is a must, however, being candid allows a window of reality that may not possibly be seen or heard without it. When done in a respectful way, it allows an individual to take note and learn from it; it may even instill some confidence. When people are allowed to engage in their ideas, candid or not, they more likely will follow through with them. The ebb and flow of a workplace depends on new and challenging ideas, which may not surface if exceedingly cautious to new challenges. We need to hear the truth one way or another, but being tasteful in how it comes across makes all the difference.
I appreciate this timely post - I'm sitting here this morning ahead of a challenging 1:1 I need to have today to figure out how to have the conversation. So, it's a nice reminder.
One aspect I'm curious about is the mention of radical candor in a way that implies it's misuse. The book Radical Candor is the best I've found describing this topic, highlighting how we can quickly step into "obnoxious aggression" or "manipulative insincerity" if we don't pay attention to the harmony of directness and compassion. I assume the phrase came from the book, but people aren't reading it and using it in a way that is considered "too much candor." What are your thoughts?
Many more people have heard the naming convention and don’t understand the important nuance. The idea of Radical Candor is a victim of its own catchy name who assume they know how to use it.
The fact is many organizations opt for harmony over truth and the candor come from corners of the organization that get pushed out because the culture doesn’t truly allow for candor.
What are the main reasons you’ve seen organizations are largely resistant to being candid, Josh?
That makes sense. I am biased in that the first time I heard Radical Candor was through reading the book as a suggestion. I can see how the name creates a misnomer if the framework doesn't accompany it. I've heard similar things about titles such as "Nonviolent Communication." Could be interpreted in a way very different than intended.
I agree with your second point as well. True candor doesn't work unless there's trust.
From my point of view, besides a culture that does not empower it, the most common thing I see is fear. Being candid is always uncomfortable to some extent, no matter how many times we've embraced it. It's characterized well in the article - don't want to hurt people's feelings, desire to be liked, etc.
I also find that receiving feedback with positive intent is perhaps even more challenging, and my focus right now for myself and my team is that gratitude can be the counter-balance to defensiveness - our brains can't be in both modes simultaneously.
You make some valid points. The book is clearly attempting to market itself with coined lingo that boil down to common sense. I believe EVERYTHING comes down to balance. Example: too little candor can make people not know where they stand. Too much can make the boss come across as a tyrant.
Being filtered is a must, however, being candid allows a window of reality that may not possibly be seen or heard without it. When done in a respectful way, it allows an individual to take note and learn from it; it may even instill some confidence. When people are allowed to engage in their ideas, candid or not, they more likely will follow through with them. The ebb and flow of a workplace depends on new and challenging ideas, which may not surface if exceedingly cautious to new challenges. We need to hear the truth one way or another, but being tasteful in how it comes across makes all the difference.
Thanks, Kathy. You’ve seen candor used an justification for rudeness?
I appreciate this timely post - I'm sitting here this morning ahead of a challenging 1:1 I need to have today to figure out how to have the conversation. So, it's a nice reminder.
One aspect I'm curious about is the mention of radical candor in a way that implies it's misuse. The book Radical Candor is the best I've found describing this topic, highlighting how we can quickly step into "obnoxious aggression" or "manipulative insincerity" if we don't pay attention to the harmony of directness and compassion. I assume the phrase came from the book, but people aren't reading it and using it in a way that is considered "too much candor." What are your thoughts?
Many more people have heard the naming convention and don’t understand the important nuance. The idea of Radical Candor is a victim of its own catchy name who assume they know how to use it.
The fact is many organizations opt for harmony over truth and the candor come from corners of the organization that get pushed out because the culture doesn’t truly allow for candor.
What are the main reasons you’ve seen organizations are largely resistant to being candid, Josh?
That makes sense. I am biased in that the first time I heard Radical Candor was through reading the book as a suggestion. I can see how the name creates a misnomer if the framework doesn't accompany it. I've heard similar things about titles such as "Nonviolent Communication." Could be interpreted in a way very different than intended.
I agree with your second point as well. True candor doesn't work unless there's trust.
From my point of view, besides a culture that does not empower it, the most common thing I see is fear. Being candid is always uncomfortable to some extent, no matter how many times we've embraced it. It's characterized well in the article - don't want to hurt people's feelings, desire to be liked, etc.
I also find that receiving feedback with positive intent is perhaps even more challenging, and my focus right now for myself and my team is that gratitude can be the counter-balance to defensiveness - our brains can't be in both modes simultaneously.
Good morning Josh,
You make some valid points. The book is clearly attempting to market itself with coined lingo that boil down to common sense. I believe EVERYTHING comes down to balance. Example: too little candor can make people not know where they stand. Too much can make the boss come across as a tyrant.
Thank you for your time.